SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #41
If you think Sky Dancer is a liar that sounds like something you should take up with Sky Dancer.just because someone claims harrassment or uses the word *harrass* doesn't mean they're actually being harrassed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you think Sky Dancer is a liar that sounds like something you should take up with Sky Dancer.just because someone claims harrassment or uses the word *harrass* doesn't mean they're actually being harrassed.
I wonder if the verdict would have been the same, if all the content was the same, only substituting White Trash for ******, and the victim had been White?
Somehow, I doubt it...
Considering the term "white trash" is about 1/100th as offensive as the term "******", I agree.
If he was also queer he probably woulda got 3 million.![]()
True. The more protected you are, the higher the payoff.
(And for the crazy people here, I'm not saying calling someone a '******' is right (or a 'queer', for that matter). Don't be daft. It's clearly wrong. But a $1.5 million payoff for this? That's just ridiculous.)
Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
I wonder if the verdict would have been the same, if all the content was the same, only substituting White Trash for ******, and the victim had been White?
Somehow, I doubt it...
Considering the term "white trash" is about 1/100th as offensive as the term "******", I agree.
That's only because the target audience is about 1/100th as hypersensitive.
OK.True. The more protected you are, the higher the payoff.
(And for the crazy people here, I'm not saying calling someone a '******' is right (or a 'queer', for that matter). Don't be daft. It's clearly wrong. But a $1.5 million payoff for this? That's just ridiculous.)
Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
I found you a new avatar. You can thank me later:
![]()
I agree that the company needed to be punished. It's illegal to harass people when attempting to collect a debt. Add to that the vulgar racist verbiage, and yes, the company needed substantial punitive damages to send a message to them and their industry.
Apparently, this was all over a $200 debt which the guy said he had paid.
The message will be 'free money if you don't pay your debts and get called names for it'.
I'm curious, why do you think that the law should only be enforced against individuals, and not against corporations? Its a clear violation of law for a creditor to harass a debtor, and certainly in this case it was particularly egregious. Do you not think this should be enforced?
If he was also queer he probably woulda got 3 million.![]()
True. The more protected you are, the higher the payoff.
(And for the crazy people here, I'm not saying calling someone a '******' is right (or a 'queer', for that matter). Don't be daft. It's clearly wrong. But a $1.5 million payoff for this? That's just ridiculous.)
Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
The message will be 'free money if you don't pay your debts and get called names for it'.
I'm curious, why do you think that the law should only be enforced against individuals, and not against corporations? Its a clear violation of law for a creditor to harass a debtor, and certainly in this case it was particularly egregious. Do you not think this should be enforced?
what part of agreeing with the verdict continues to elude you?
i think an ablebodied person parking in a handicapped space is a heinous act, but i also am not calling for the death penalty for doing it.
proportionality: it's not just for art school, skippy.
I'm curious, why do you think that the law should only be enforced against individuals, and not against corporations? Its a clear violation of law for a creditor to harass a debtor, and certainly in this case it was particularly egregious. Do you not think this should be enforced?
what part of agreeing with the verdict continues to elude you?
i think an ablebodied person parking in a handicapped space is a heinous act, but i also am not calling for the death penalty for doing it.
proportionality: it's not just for art school, skippy.
By what measure are you determining "proportionality" ? What's the point of punitive damages that aren't big enough to actually hurt a company?
I'm not really sure how you equate paying a fine with the death penalty, either, that seems a bit off.
OK.Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
I found you a new avatar. You can thank me later:
![]()
Back to the conversation.
Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
well then if $1.5MM doesn't put them out of business, what's the point, right?
should we cut out the offender's tongue?
OK.I found you a new avatar. You can thank me later:
![]()
Back to the conversation.
Why is it ridiculous?
Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?
For one, it shouldn't matter how much the company makes. We need to find out if this is a common practice at ACT. If it is, I might be able to buy the big payout. However, from a quick google search of the company, it appears to be a solid and legitimate company, and the employee who did this was probably fired. I seriously doubt any company in this day and age would condone such behavior. My hunch is that this is a rogue employee who operated under the radar and was fired as a result. It happens. So why should the guy who claims to have paid his bill (which I seriously doubt) get $1.5 million??? That's just ridiculous IMO.
Its a punitive damage, intended to hurt the company. They violated the law. They must pay. I fail to see why you think you know more than the judge or jury.You agree with the court's decision as fair and reasonable. You don't like the amount. Why?
You don't have to pay it, this corporation does and they ought to know better. They deserve to pay through the nose. The voice mails were not only vulgar, but racist and harassing.
It's not about who pays, it is about what is 'fair and reasonable'. The decision was, the amount is ludicrous. $1.5m for a few insulting calls - seriously?
I find that offensive. People see this kind of shit as a money tree and it is not. Particularly when, but for his own actions, it would not have happened.
I was wondering how long it would take you to blame the victim.
I was
I seriously doubt any company in this day and age would condone such behavior. My hunch is that this is a rogue employee who operated under the radar and was fired as a result.
More of your serious doubts. What do you even base that on? A "serious doubt" What the fuck does that mean? How do you know he didn't already pay his bill? I got a collection notice a few years back for a debt that was paid several years prior - I sent them a copy of the canceled check - they dropped the charge. Collection agencies - believe it or not - are not infallible and can make mistakes and go after people who have already paid.It happens. So why should the guy who claims to have paid his bill (which I seriously doubt) get $1.5 million??? That's just ridiculous IMO.
I seriously doubt any company in this day and age would condone such behavior. My hunch is that this is a rogue employee who operated under the radar and was fired as a result.
Well heck, your hunches and generalizations are certainly much more important in this case than the jury and judge who actually sat through the trial and got to see the evidence presented by both sides.
More of your serious doubts. What do you even base that on? A "serious doubt" What the fuck does that mean? How do you know he didn't already pay his bill? I got a collection notice a few years back for a debt that was paid several years prior - I sent them a copy of the canceled check - they dropped the charge. Collection agencies - believe it or not - are not infallible and can make mistakes and go after people who have already paid.It happens. So why should the guy who claims to have paid his bill (which I seriously doubt) get $1.5 million??? That's just ridiculous IMO.
You appear to have "serious doubt" that the guy already paid it while also "seriously doubting" that a collection company would ever condone the harassment debtors - seems to me like you just assume companies always do right and individuals always do wrong.
Some years ago some guy name "Jorge Accabado" apparently gave my wife's phone number when applying for some sort of credit. Now we get calls from credit agencies every now and then for this guy. Collection agents are asshole morons. One called up asking for the guy once - I said "I've never met the guy in my life, you have the wrong number" and he replied "Well do you know where he lives?"Fucking idiots.
A friend of mine passed away a few years ago, way to young, in his late 20's. He had thousands in credit card debt - the credit card company's collectors went after his parents directly, and were calling them and harassing them and wrongly claiming that they owed the money now and would have to pay.
I was late paying on my student loans many years ago. A credit agency called my dad pretending to be a college friend who wanted to invite me to her wedding. My dad gave them my number and they harassed me at work. They are slime.
yeah, they've got some nerve expecting you to pay your debts.
hate mongering bastards
I was late paying on my student loans many years ago. A credit agency called my dad pretending to be a college friend who wanted to invite me to her wedding. My dad gave them my number and they harassed me at work. They are slime.
yeah, they've got some nerve expecting you to pay your debts.
hate mongering bastards
I didn't say they were hate mongering bastards del. I paid my debt btw. I say that their methods were illegal and wrong. Can you understand that distinction?
Thanks.
Damn, Whinyman, can you get any more stupid? I stated - quite clearly for anyone with an IQ over 40 - that I agreed with the verdict.... that is not blaming the victim....
If he'd paid his debts, it wouldn't have happened
Really? Then give me your phone number.although a few harrassing phone calls and some nasty names hardly makes anyone a 'victim' of anything more than we see on this board daily.
I said that the MESSAGE that the verdict will send will not just be to the debt collection agencies - who are perfectly legitimate businesses.... the MESSAGE will be to other potential 'victims' that they too can not pay their debts and walk away with $1.5m for hurt feelings.
Ms CaliGirl Who is Not Blaming the Victim, what makes him an asshole? Is his trust fund bigger than yours now?Personally, I find it offensive that real victims are left to suffer and this asshole walks away with $1.5m..... Not surprisingly you're too fucking stupid to think logically.
yeah, they've got some nerve expecting you to pay your debts.
hate mongering bastards
I didn't say they were hate mongering bastards del. I paid my debt btw. I say that their methods were illegal and wrong. Can you understand that distinction?
Thanks.
i'm glad you paid your debt. how long did they have to chase you?